China’s outlined a buildout of nuclear power in the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025), released in March 2021. China plans 150 new nuclear reactors over the ensuing 15 years to reach a production goal of 200 GW of nuclear energy by 2035. Analysts estimated that adding an additional 147 GW (to the 53 GW of nuclear energy China produced at the time) would entail an investment of $370 billion to $440 billion over that 15-year timeframe. By 2050, China wants nuclear to provide at least 15 percent of its electricity generation (which China envisions as its third overall source of energy by that year, behind wind and solar).
China is looking to make molten salt and thorium reactors as part of the plan.
China built a prototype of a thorium molten salt reactor (TMSR) with a capacity of 2 MW began in September 2018 and was reportedly completed in August 2021. The project was started in 2011 at a cost of ¥ 3 billion ($US 450 million). Construction of the reactor started in 2018 and was completed in 2021.
China plans to build the world’s first NPP based on molten salt in the Gobi desert. Construction will begin in 2025 for the 10MWe/60MWth reactor. The reactor does not need water for cooling, since it uses liquid salt and carbon dioxide to transfer heat and generate electricity. New reactor specifications include: core graphite 3 m tall x 2.2 m wide, 700 °C operating temperature, 60 MW thermal output, and an experimental supercritical carbon dioxide-based closed-cycle gas turbine to convert the thermal output to 10 MW of electricity. Construction is slated to start in 2025, and be completed by 2029.
The reactor will use fuel enriched in less than 20% U-235, with a thorium reserve of about 50 kg and a conversion factor of about 0.1. FLiBe – a eutectic mixture of lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride containing 99.95% lithium-7 will be used, and the fuel will consist of uranium tetrafluoride (UF4).
China will follow up with a larger 373 MWth molten salt reactor around 2030. This 373 MWt/168 MWe liquid-fuel MSR small modular reactor is planned, with supercritical CO2 cycle in a tertiary loop at 23 MPa using Brayton cycle, after a radioactive isolation secondary loop. Various applications as well as electricity generation are envisaged. It would be loaded with 15.7 tonnes of thorium and 2.1 tonnes of uranium (19.75% enriched), with one kilogram of uranium added daily, and have 330 GWd/t burn-up with 30% of energy from thorium. Online refueling would enable eight years of operation before shutdown, with the graphite moderator needing attention.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
They are probably getting more value out of the supercritical CO2 loop demo than the MSR, considering the industrial power applications elsewhere.
What I don’t understand, why the daily 1kg uranium supply is necessary? After the cycle gets to the point where U233 appears, no more extra uranium is needed.
“thorium reserve… and a conversion factor of about 0.1… It would be loaded with 15.7 tonnes of thorium and 2.1 tonnes of uranium (19.75% enriched), with one kilogram of uranium added daily, and have 330 GWd/t burn-up with 30% of energy from thorium.”
There aren’t any details given that would help it make sense, and the numbers don’t work without assumptions.
The context of ‘conversion factor’ as used in the article is clearly not the traditional definition, which is synonymous with ‘breeding ratio’. ‘Conversion Ratio’ is used for burners (PWR conversion ratio ~ 0.75) and the same number is ‘breeding ratio’ for breeders; it is number of fuel atoms created per number of fuel atoms destroyed. The article says “conversion factor of 0.1”, so maybe they mean breeding ratio = 1.1; anyway that would be quite a high design target (requiring de-fueling).
Not sure how they would accumulate 330 GWD/T at 0.060 GW in 18 tonnes of material unless the active part of the core was 100kg, then that [reaction volume?] would achieve 330 GWD/T in 550 full power days (e.g. 0.06GW(550D)/0.100T = 330 GWD/T)?
Why is extra uranium needed? Could be a seed/blanket or “two fluid” design where most of the mass is a blanket and not in the reaction zone? Again no details – it is CHINA. 1KG HALEU per day is a TREMENDOUS feed rate considering the 60MW rating; 1KG HALEU is worth more than 4.6 GWH.
Maybe they are siphoning-off 1KGU/day from the reaction zone and replacing it in a sort of ‘online’ fuel handling process.
I do find it amusing that Laszlo is surprised the Chinese experiment isn’t just like Kirk Sorensen said it all would work.
Thorium has long been an interesting nuclear fuel. I would suggest more so for space propulsion. Though it’s “caloric energy, per gram” is less then say, enriched Uranium, it’s innate stability makes it easier to handle. And, far as I know, you can’t (easily at least, if possible), make a bomb out of it. Sounds great to me.
actually, irradiating thoria pins separate from the driver pins containing uranium or plutonium in a thermal reactor (e.g. LWR) is the easiest path to obtaining a nearly pure fissile material. 98.5% 233U will build up in the thoria pins with about 1.5% 232U ‘contaminant’… This uranium ‘vector’ can be removed from the thoria by reaction with F2 and HF – weapons grade 233UF6 will ‘waft’ out of the mixture and may be condensed.
Not a lot of press coming out of the previous experimentation… We heard they were going to build it, was reported here; they built it now they’re moving on, but bigger.
Looks like I’ll be eating my words many years after I’m dead. /S